<FONT FACE="Helvetica, Arial">Holmes Sex Offender Could Spend<BR>Rest Of His Life In Mental Instit

Published: January 5, 2000 12:00 AM

A Millersburg man who molested an 8-year-old boy and an 11-year-old boy in 1991 and a 6-year-old girl 1991 could spend the rest of his life in a mental institution after the Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld a 1997 Holmes County Common Pleas Court ruling.

In 1996, John Ray Bretz, 47, formerly of 3320 County Road 150, was found incompetent to stand trial and was ordered to be institutionalized for 12 months. A doctor from the Massillon Psychiatric Center, where Bretz was hospitalized, testified a year later that Bretz could not be rehabilitated. He was diagnosed schizophrenic, according to court records.

In November 1997, Judge Thomas D. White determined Bretz committed attempted rape, gross sexual imposition and felonious sexual penetration on an 8-year-old boy in the fall of 1994. White also ruled Bretz committed gross sexual imposition against an 11-year-old boy during the same year and committed felonious sexual penetration against a 6-year-old girl in 1991. The ruling followed a hearing at which all three children testified.

Effective July 1, 1997, state law permits the trial court to retain jurisdiction over the case if after a hearing the court finds the defendant committed the offense for which he was charged, and he is mentally ill and subject to hospitalization by court order. Previously the court had only one option -- send Bretz to probate court for civil commitment to an institution.

According to the law, if the defendant is found to have committed the crimes, he can be committed to an institution for a period not to exceed the jail time to which he could be sentenced for the crimes.

[Article continues below]

By maintaining jurisdiction over the case, the court can stipulate the offender not be released until the sentence is complete.

Two of the charges which Bretz was found to have committed carry life sentences.

The court of appeals ruled that, while the offenses were committed prior to creation of the law, imposition of the law was not unconsitional because the court proceedings followed enactment of the law.

In upholding White's decision, the court of appeals ruled, "Given (Bretz's) psychological evaluations as well as the trail court's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that (Bretz) had committed the charges alleged in the indictment and the trial court's finding that (Bretz) represents a substantial risk of physical harm to others, we find that the possibility of an erroneous deprivation of (Bretz's) liberty is slight

"Thus, we do not find that (Bretz's) due process rights have been violated since the nature and duration of (Bretz's) commitment bear a reasonable relation to the purpose for which he was committed."

[Article continues below]

The appeals judges also upheld White's ruling that Bretz committed the offenses, and White did not err in sentencing him to the mental hospital, with the court retaining jurisdiction over Bretz's commitment for life.